Welcome to the Q&A Forum

You should check out Moz's Keyword Research Tool. We offer an easy to use filter for "Display keyword suggestions that are questions". Hope that helps?

So glad if that will help! Good luck - you have a really important chance to help this business

Thanks mucho!

Not back during the fall of 2013, but more recently there's been a change, and it's likely because of the website vendor switch. Will the links eventually disappear from GWT? If so, do you know the timeframe?

Hi there! As long as the campaigns are set up to track all subdomains, we'll follow any 301's set up. Reviewing your account, it looks like there's only one one campaign that's set to track only a single subdomain. You can see which one it is from your account overview page. It'll be the campaign with the www in the listed domain. There's unfortunately no way to change the crawl type or domain in an active campaign right now. You'd need to create a new campaign with the correct domain in this case. The old campaign can be archived to preserve it's historic data though. Thanks!

Thanks Andy! I'll add the second step of the URL removal tool.

Thanks masdigitalmedia.

This is a great question and a topic we are really interested in hearing more about at Moz. We understand that changing workflows can be painful and challenging, and are dedicated to making Moz Analytics a worthy successor to Pro. If you have any specific items that you find frustrating, missing, or hard to find, we'd love it of you respond in the thread, or even email me directly (adam -at- moz.com). Also let us know if there are things we could do to help, whether it be resources, education, or product changes. Thanks!

Tom, Would there be any benefit to use GWT's url removal tool for the old mobile website? m.domain.com? Thanks, Ellen

Thanks Keri!

Thanks Moosa. I'll check out the link. To add, we already do use categorized sitemaps in the sitemap_index.xml structure. We have it split into several different sitemaps. No links are duplicated across those sitemaps, and we have noticed a boost in more pages being indexed since we implemented that. My question still remains though. If this sitemap (www.fancydomain.com/sitemap_index.xml) has the following structure: <sitemapindex<span class="webkit-html-attribute"> xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9"</sitemapindex<span>><sitemap></sitemap>http://www.fancydomain.com/Pages_Sitemap.xml<sitemap></sitemap>http://www.fancydomain.com/Carnivorous_Kittens_Sitemap.xml<sitemap></sitemap>http://www.fancydomain.com/Baby_Dragons_Sitemap.xml<sitemap></sitemap>http://www.fancydomain.com/Jimmy_Hoffa_Sitemap.xml Can we also add: <loc>http://blog.fancydomain.com/sitemap_index.xml</loc> into that same location? And if we can, is there any benefit? Thanks!

Unfortunately I don't have experience with that.

I took this to mean that they won't show a snippet unless they find all the ingredients - not that  you "can't" so much.  I still did the mark up exercise because at least it was a start in communicating the nature of the page content. I'd love to hear what others think however.

Makes a little more sense. I'll get it eventually Thanks Megan!

Good point about the Change History - at least that will catch things like new filters. Understood about the external doc being easier for some clients not used to working in Analytics. When going that route, I at lease try to get them working in a shared document - either in Google Docs or at least a shared doc in a DropBox or something. That way there are fewer issues with trying to figure out who has the most current version, and it's available to you when you need it - like when you are doing a normal monthly review but want to quickly check what you  think might be an anomaly - without having to make a request for the doc. P.

Thanks Takeshi!

Hiding text in this manner is a perfectly acceptable UI choice, and will not negatively impact your site. When people talk about hiding text being a negative factor, they are referring to cases where people will stuff tons of keywords into invisible divs, or have text that's the same background as the page, or other methods of presenting the search engine with different content than the user, which is basically cloaking.

Currently I am using free version of ahrefs.com, will convert account into paid if required. I also use opensiteexplorer but I like anchor text distribution functionality of ahefs.com.

Thanks Joel!

These pages are extremely light on the content, and they have barely any search traffic, if any. A user reaches these pages by clicking on a call-to-action button (contact us, or get a quote, or make an offer). The resulting URL would pass through dynamic url parameters from the previous page, but the content on the page itself consists only of a form to fill out and one paragraph. Though that one paragraph would have different text depending on which call-to-action button they clicked on, it's entirely the same in structure and code, with the exception of the parameter-laced URL. We're still keeping the call-to-action buttons, but our developers are changing the form structure so there are not hundreds of these pages that are duplicate content. It's going to be a vast improvement for the user. Thank you for all of your suggestions. I'll definitely use them in the future if we decide to re-purpose pages on our websites.